学位论文题名 法律义务的构成及其合理性分析
论文作者    钱大军
作者单位    吉林大学
专    业    法学理论
指导教师    郑成良
并列题名    The composition and analysis of rationality of legal obligation
学位级别    303
中文文摘
    在我国法学领域中，学者过多地关注对法律权利的研究，而对法律义务的探讨或是隐含于或是附着于对法律权利的探讨。这使对法律义务的探讨处于相对落后的状态。为了改变这种局面，就必须对法律义务进行独立的研究。这样不仅会更好的理解、阐释法律义务，而且也助于对法律权利的进一步认识。本文的主要目的是对法律义务进行研究的尝试。“我们的观念是我们的眼镜。”无疑在阐释法律义务的过程中，也在自觉非自觉地理解法律这个概念。因此，笔者在分析、讨论法律义务的过程中是以对法律的理解和阐释为基础的。对法律义务范畴进行解释，我们首先需要对法律义务进行定义式的解释。虽然法律理论不应建立在定义的脊背上，但是定义对理解法律也是必要的。“倒掉洗澡水不应把婴儿同时也泼掉。”所以，欲认识、理解法律义务范畴，就应先对法律义务以定义的方式进行理解。笔者认为，此时应注意以下几点：首先，这种理解应是相对地独立于法律权利的，而不是简单地从法律权利中推衍出来。如果仅是推衍出来地研究，势必会模糊对法律义务的认识，因为法律义务与法律权利并非总是一一对应的。其次，这种解释，在人性上应以正常人为基础，尽可能地做到价值祛除。既要从不良分子的角度，也要从好人的角度去认识法律义务。如从好人的角度去认识，会模糊法律义务的性质，把法律义务与道德义务混淆起来；如仅从不良分子的角度去认识，又会模糊“被迫”行为模式与规则模式之间的界限。最后，这种解释应是以经验为前提的，而不是以超乎一切的理性为基础。现在人们对法律义务的定义，往往具有人为理性的创造成分。这会使法律义务失去本来的面目。笔者在此基础上，对法律义务进行定义式解释，即对法律义务是指主体应当采取的行为模式，并是引起偏离行为模式者的法律责任的理由。“价值要在司法过程中发挥作用，推理工具就应当具有一定程度的灵活性，因而概念分析并未展开一幅清晰的图画。”为了刻画出一幅清晰的图画，就需要研究法律义务的内部构成，即具备了哪些条件，方能构成一项法律义务。笔者认为，法律义务首先意味着“应当”，即法律义务首先是作为一种期待而存在。这源于法律义务的特性——规范性，而不是其它。但是法律义务并不等同于“应当”或“应当的行为”。否则，对法律义务的理解又陷入了“规范论”的误区。而且，应当并不等于法律义务，理由是法律中存在着指示性规范——一种不真正的法律义务。其次，法律义务的目的在于规范行为，脱离开行为就无法认识法律义务。因此行为是法律义务的第二个构成要素。这种行为，既包括期待行为，也包括具体行为。这两种行为是“应当”与“是”之间的关系。在正常的社会中，两者在很大程度上是一致的，但也时刻存在着冲突的可能。通过冲突——妥协——再冲突——再妥协的过程，一点一点地发挥法律义务的作用。因此可以说，两者间的冲突是通过实践来解决的。其实，法律义务中的行为包含着两种行为模式；守法模式和违法模式。针对违法模式，就需要责任来回应，但这种责任在法律义务中只是一种可能。最后，为了解决“应当”与“是”之间的冲突，引起责任的可能性成为法律义务的第三个构成要素。但始终需要注意的是，构成法律义务的责任是一种可能性，而非实体。因此，笔者认为法律义务由应当、行为和引起责任的可能性构成。这三者间并非是平面关系，而是一种互动的关系。这种互动的关系是在实际中产生，调整和完成的。法律的一般理论必须即是规范性的又是概念性的。以上两部分集中在法律义务规范性上，这对研究和认识法律义务是不充分的。还必须从概念性的角度去研究，即研究法律义务的内容及其合理性问题。本文的讨论集中于法律义务的合理性问题——主要是讨论法律义务合理与否的标准和原因。探讨法律义务是否合理的标准问题。首先应关注法律义务是自评，即自立、自成、自证，还是存在外在的标准——主要是法律权利。这又关涉到了法律学的基本理论问题——在法律权利和法律义务中，谁更为一般的概念。笔者通过对义务概念理论和权利概念理论的梳理，认为法律权利为更为一般的概念。包括法律义务在的其它法律概念都是以法律权利为基础展开的。因此，法律义务合理与否只能由法律权利来评定。对法律义务合理与否的分析，是通过形式合理与实质合理二元模式进行的。形式合理性主要指法律义务本身的要求，如普遍性，公平性，明确性和相容性。而实质合理性要求法律义务要符合法律权利的需求——必要性和适度性。在适度问题上，又给出了人道主义和功利主义两个标准。最后。讨论了形式合理性与实质合理性之间的关系。通过分析，笔者认为，形式合理性优先于实质合理性。通过本文的探讨，使法律义务被清晰地展现出来，使法律义务的探讨得到充实，并可以在此基础上进一步认识法律权利、权力等基本概念。当然，囿于本文的篇幅及作者的视野、能力，本文的论述只能算是窥豹之一斑，不免有捉襟见肘之处。但是愿意以此拙文叩开法律义务研究的大门，领略学界前辈及先行者的风采，并求教于他们。
英文文摘 In the field of science of law, much attention has been paid to the study of legal right while the topic on legal obligation remains unnoticed. In order to get a further & comprehensive knowledge of legal obligation and to understand legal right better, this paper tends to make a tentative research on legal obligation after some concepts concerning law are briefly elaborated. The classification of category of legal obligation presupposes the definition of legal obligation .In defining legal obligation, three points should be kept in heart: firstly, the definition is made independently of legal right instead of derived from it, if not the understanding of legal obligation will become obscure. secondly, legal obligation should be elaborated on the basis of experiences not on the basis of reason .These elaboration containing humane reason will make legal obligation lose its original face .thirdly, legal obligation bases its value of human nature on the normal beings .If it is realized from the opinion of good person , legal obligation will reduce the distinctiveness of its character and is easily confused with moral duty .If from the opinion of bad person , it is difficult to decide the limit between compulsive behavior pattern and regular behavior pattern . On the whole, legal obligation refers to the behavior pattern that subjects should take .It is the reason of legal responsibility for deviated behavior pattern.Another focus concerned is the composition of legal obligation, i.e. what legal duty is composed of. According to the paper, legal obligation first means "obligation " which is drawn from its feature----normalization. But it does not equal "obligation" or "obligation action ", otherwise the understanding of legal obligation will fall into the scope of "normalism". The reason lies in the fact that there exists in law directive norm which is not real legal obligation, and also legal obligation is expected only to normalize act. Therefore act is the second compositional element in legal obligation. Without act, legal obligation will not stand. Furtherly, the act includes concrete act and expectant act, both of which, to great degree, are consistent permitting minor conflicts solved by practice. Besides, the act, in legal obligation, has two behavior patterns. Legal pattern &illegal pattern, and the latter will find answers from responsibility. This responsibility a possibility not an entity in legal obligation, become the third compositional element of legal obligation. In a word, legal obligation consists of obligation, behavior and possibility to creat duty. These three factors hold mutual driving relationship instead of plane relationship. A very comprehensive study in the basis theory of law should be made both regulatory and conceptual. Here, the paper puts more emphasis on the conceptual feature of legal obligation ----the judgement of rationality.In order to judge whether legal obligation is reasonable or not, the criteria should be made clear: legal obligation is judged by itself or by legal right and other criteria. The answer to it involves the theoretical idea----which is more general concept between legal right legal obligation. It has already been known that almost all the legal concepts including legal obligation develop from legal right, which seems more general than others. Therefore the criteria to judge legal obligation is reasonable or not is legal right. The analysis of reasonable of legal obligation is conducted in detail through two patterns: formal rationality and substantial rationality. Formal rationality is requirements that legal obligation itself demands, for example, universality, fairness, explicitness and compatibility, while substantial rationality means that legal obligation should conform to legal right in necessarity and adequateness, for the latter of which two criteria utilitarianism and humanitarianism are offered. Finally the discussion of relationship between formal and substantial rationality leads to the conclusion that formal rationality is superior to substantial rationality.To sum up, by analysis of legal obligation & legal right, the research on legal obligation has been made profoundly & gone deeper than before. Moreover, this paper has thrown light on the basis concepts such as legal right and power. However due to limited space and vision of the auther, it has its confinements. Difficult though the task is, from what will be discussed in this paper, it is expected that some tentatively useful direction will be feasible for fruitful explorations in this area.
索书号 3010268
主题词 法律义务法律权利应当行为
分类号 D90
论文答辩日期 20010410
论文页码总数 39P
论文页码总数 ref15
文献语种 zh
记录来源 吉林大学
记录流水号 DA200112005681

馆藏信息： 馆藏号 索书号
吉林大学 3010268